Head of School at National Child Research Center (NCRC) - Arrest warrant issued

[Anonymous]

That’s what the government argues—that if he was able to deceive her all these years, then she is not the appropriate chaperone. But again, he should stay locked up in my opinion. FYI You can also see Carroll’s memo arguing for release if you look at the docket. It’s insane.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I agree. It’s so concerning that his lawyers are arguing he should be out because the scenario (with the undercover agent) was fictitious (but Carroll THOUGHT) it was real. It’s all so sick. I’m so worried he won’t get the max sentence

It's his lawyers' job to zealously advocate for their client, including that he be released. You might not agree, the judge might not agree, but it's not concerning that the lawyers are making the argument.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I agree. It’s so concerning that his lawyers are arguing he should be out because the scenario (with the undercover agent) was fictitious (but Carroll THOUGHT) it was real. It’s all so sick. I’m so worried he won’t get the max sentence

It's his lawyers' job to zealously advocate for their client, including that he be released. You might not agree, the judge might not agree, but it's not concerning that the lawyers are making the argument.

You’re completely right. That’s their job and their duty for their client—I just hate the thought of him getting out.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I agree. It’s so concerning that his lawyers are arguing he should be out because the scenario (with the undercover agent) was fictitious (but Carroll THOUGHT) it was real. It’s all so sick. I’m so worried he won’t get the max sentence

It's his lawyers' job to zealously advocate for their client, including that he be released. You might not agree, the judge might not agree, but it's not concerning that the lawyers are making the argument.

You’re completely right. That’s their job and their duty for their client—I just hate the thought of him getting out.

You’re so worried that he won’t get the max sentence? Is 242 years really that different than say, 35 years? Let the system work and focus your worry on other things.

[Anonymous]

Is 242 years a reality? Or just hypothetical?

My concern is the WHC guy was free to go.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I agree. It’s so concerning that his lawyers are arguing he should be out because the scenario (with the undercover agent) was fictitious (but Carroll THOUGHT) it was real. It’s all so sick. I’m so worried he won’t get the max sentence

It's his lawyers' job to zealously advocate for their client, including that he be released. You might not agree, the judge might not agree, but it's not concerning that the lawyers are making the argument.

You’re completely right. That’s their job and their duty for their client—I just hate the thought of him getting out.

You’re so worried that he won’t get the max sentence? Is 242 years really that different than say, 35 years? Let the system work and focus your worry on other things.

I haven’t been following this at all, but this made me do the equivalent of a double take.

You are asking if there’s a difference between 242 years and 35 years? Yes, 207 years. Unless this guy is so old that 35 years is a guaranteed life sentence, there’s a big difference.

[Anonymous]

The NCRC board sent a very long email to current and former parents earlier this summer that outlined their "comprehensive" investigation that they claim found he did nothing while on campus. It also went through in extensive detail how the Board's process of hiring him originally was basically flawless. I would very much like to hear from them again based on these new details. Enough of washing your hands of this.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The NCRC board sent a very long email to current and former parents earlier this summer that outlined their "comprehensive" investigation that they claim found he did nothing while on campus. It also went through in extensive detail how the Board's process of hiring him originally was basically flawless. I would very much like to hear from them again based on these new details. Enough of washing your hands of this.

Who cares what the board has to say? Has nothing to do with the board. What new details concern the board?

[Anonymous]

Nothing in this contradicts what the investigation revealed. It only confirms that he went to great lengths to hide his addiction and not even his wife knew. With no criminal record, how would the hiring process have revealed this? He spect a decade at Beauvoir.

[Anonymous]

Yes, he went to great lengths to hide his proclivities. Yes, according to the government he spent a massive amount of time on these sites while on NCRC property, and also set up a new discord account from an NCRC IP address. Maybe no one was paying close enough attention? We cannot deny that there are lessons to be learned from this. What signs were missed? What was ignored? The answers to these questions cannot be “none” and “nothing”

[Anonymous]

Discord isn’t actually an illegal site—how he used it, is a different story.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Yes, he went to great lengths to hide his proclivities. Yes, according to the government he spent a massive amount of time on these sites while on NCRC property, and also set up a new discord account from an NCRC IP address. Maybe no one was paying close enough attention? We cannot deny that there are lessons to be learned from this. What signs were missed? What was ignored? The answers to these questions cannot be “none” and “nothing”

But that was the case. The only "signs" were that some people didn't take to him.

And who in a small admin staff of a half dozen or was supposed to be monitoring his internet use?

[Anonymous]

So I think you just outlined a learning. Start with the assumption that we must be hyper vigilant in settings around children (look at Washington Hebrew, BVR, and NCRC all within a 2 mile radius of each other). Now based on what we know happened with James, schools should be monitoring what is happening on their IP addresses. This can be outsourced. Discord may be legal, but the amount of time James was spending on it could have been flagged. Even if he was using it for legal reasons, the HOS should not be doing non school related internet surfing all day.

[Anonymous]

Any word on this mornings detention hearing? Was he released or are they going to continue to hold him?

[Anonymous]

Update: they are holding him. Status hearing scheduled for October 2